madras

what does that make mourinho

It was, that and a board with no ambition. shhhhh!.......the you know whos! Ever see LOTR's the 1st one where the clumsy hobbit knocks the alarm in the dwarf mines? *dum dum dum dummm dumm dummm* 'They have a cave troll' dead pleased to say "no i haven't"

you forgot the people from the top of the street

It was, that and a board with no ambition. shhhhh!.......the you know whos!

i'm more nufc,so if a majority nufc team plays i'd have to question it

maybe he saw the nufv v l/pool league cup video

when he first came wasn' it ?

did play centre midfield for a little bit whilst at NUFC......looked like an out of position centre half,not as good as you'd expect in that position.

true...whats it got to do with the thread ?

aye good point.......was tempted to put beardo in midfield and barry venison in central defence in my team

Opted not to sign for us permanently. Shame really, he was a good centreback. didn't deportivo want him back or they were asking too much ?

either played well out of position or made a position there own after starting elsewhere.(from my time watching nufc) ......................kevin brock solano.........steve howey........steve watson......david edgar bellamy............venison.....rob lee..........james milner ...................ginola.........micky burns

this thought hit me cos of northern irelands good run,when i was younger i supported northern ireland cos we had players who played for them,cassidy,mcfaul,davey craig,then dave mcreery then michael o'neill.one of my best nights watching international football was when they beat spain in the 82 world cup. the question is,say nufc signed 5 dutch internationals and had no england players,all 5 dutchmen played against england,who would you support ?

all cos of dyer warming up

i don't get why people take so much notice of any interviews.he'll not tell what he really thinks,just what he thinks we want to here,every manager is the same,and rightly so.

do you know where to go for a drink on friday night ? where to go pre-match saturday ? do you know how to avoid the clutches of a fat lass from annitsford when you've had 10 too many ? there is a load you still need to know

the glazers

the only people sellign shares were the Halls anyway ?? whay was the dividned necessary, apart from to prop up the failing Cameron HAll business ? to keep the other 40% (non hall/shepherd shareholding) from deserting.

I really am sorry if I seem to have put words into your mouth. I try not to. NE5 does it with me all the time and I hate it, so sincere apologies if I slipped to his level. I will answer anything you want me to. The question you seem to feel I know, I'm sorry but I genuinely don't. If you are asking anything about dividends then my position is that they are generally wrong, and they are particualrly wrong in the case of NUFC. The people who run the club should make thier profit on their investment through improving the business and therefore increasing the share price. The current board have rewarded their ability to make a loss of £23m by giving themselves dividends of £35m. Dividends on profits is understandable, nearly justifiable. Divis on incomepetence is taking the pis*, or robbery. on the other hand,a reason for a company giving dividends when there appears to be no growth is to stop people selling the shares and can give a bit stability to the share price.(shoots the ideas of conspracy theorists who think shepherd is deliberatly trying to lower the share price). the dividend was necessary,but shepherd /hall could have left theirs at the club.

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking s*** when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is. You're the one who made the "don't show off" comment, because I'd explained how player amortisation worked. As for Martins true worth versus his balance sheet value - I'm not sure how player revaluations work, as I've never had a football club as a client, or if they're permitted at all. if you go back a few pages you'll find it's already been discussed by myself and macbeth with the point i made,being made there also.

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off. Nice jibe. Doesn't deflect from the fact that you were talking s*** though. mmmmmm not really.the asset amortisation(players) still mean it is a very grey area as i've already pointed out. for example how much is martins worth,according to the balance sheet a lot less than in reality. don't make yourself look a knob by saying people are talking shit when they are in a civil discussion,theres few enough going on on here as it is.

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? The first half of the seaosn included all the summer signings, so Luque, Owen and Solano. The second half os last season had no transfer activity in it. The club do their accounts by dividing the cost of the transfer fee by the length of the contract and saying that's the monthly cost to the businhess.o So Luque for £10m, on a 5 year contract means the club accounts shows a cost of £2m per year, or £160k per month. Obviously things like wages and ground maintenance costs are the same every month. The income and expenditure for games happens as the games happen. So there is neither game-related income nor expenditure in June as there are no games. The club spread the season ticket money they receive in the summer across the football season. So say they get £25m in season ticket sales, then at half way through the season the accounts would say they had used up £12.5m of it, but it would also say that they knew they were going to have to use the other half in the second half of the season. The other steady outgoing is the interest payments on the ground redevelopment, and on the loans they have taken out. The steady incomes are from things like sponsorship, and from catering and merchandising. The sponsorship one is a slight concern. The club were given £8m of future year's sponsorship money (I guess from Nortern Rock) early, to allow them to buy Luque, Owen and Solano. This means that over the next few seasons there will be a drop of that amount from what woudl have been expected. This probably won't matter inthelong run as the extra Sky will swamp the drop. So, basically, "yes" we'd still be losing £1m per month even if we didn't sign anyone. The number will reduce but it will be hard work to get it back to the level where we at least break even. that's better explaINED. CHEERS.

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ? Player purchases don't affect your profit on date of purchase, the cost is capitalised and amortised against the length of the players contract. So if you signed Torres for £20m on a 5 year contract, the costs would hit your books at £4m p.a. over the 5 years. So basically, you're wrong. but it would still be a once a year hit . snoops isn't on line so theres no need to try and show off.

when they published their accunts for the first 6 months of the 2005-2006 season the loss was £6m. When they published them for the full year to last June (only 11 months as they chanegd accoutnign dates), the loss for the whole period was over £12m. but as you well know that is different to losing £1mill per month.(ie,they could make a profit of £1mill per month for 11months then buy torres(knowing us fred torres from stevenage borough) for £23 mill which would show a loss of £12mill but isn't a loss of £1mill per month. it may seem pedantic but the way you make it sound and it may be that way,that we are losing £1mill per month on the day-to-day running of the club not the one off hits for transfers. if we didn't buy anyone for a year would we still be "losing" £1mill per month ?

depends how much bayern offer for emre